Washington --
With today’s release
of new projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showing deficits
for as far as the eye can see -- even under very optimistic assumptions -- The Concord Coalition strongly urged enforcement of congressional
pay-as-you-go rules (paygo) as a critical first step in restoring fiscal
discipline. Waiving paygo for popular items such as extension of expiring tax
cuts and relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would increase the
deficit by $5.1 trillion over 10 years, including added debt service costs.
Given the high stakes for our nation’s fiscal and economic future, Concord said
that the presidential candidates as well as Congress should apply paygo as a
starting point for their tax and spending proposals.

“Honoring paygo requires more than rhetoric about tough
choices. It requires that tough choices are actually made and enacted into law.
This is not a mere bookkeeping exercise. It has real world consequences for our
economic future. Deficit financing of new initiatives, including legislation to
extend expiring tax cuts, would run up the national debt and its associated
interest costs, drain national savings, increase our reliance on foreign
lenders and reduce future incomes,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of
The Concord Coalition.

“There
is no such thing as a free tax cut or a free spending program, and deficit
financing only postpones and multiplies the bill when it is eventually paid by
younger generations. This is a real and
critical economic issue. The adverse effects of larger deficits on economic
growth often outweigh the positive effects of lower tax rates or higher
government spending. And choosing
instead to pay now for tax cuts, even through offsetting increases in revenues,
does not have to involve trading off economic growth, if done in the spirit of
tax reform,” said Diane Lim Rogers, chief economist of The Concord Coalition.

For many years, The Concord Coalition
has produced a “plausible” scenario using CBO numbers to show what the budget
outlook would look like if spending and tax policies are adjusted to reflect
recent trends rather than the official baseline. These adjustments:

Assume a phase-down, but not
a phase-out, of funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assume that regular
appropriations grow at the same rate as the economy.

Assume that all expiring tax
cuts are extended.

Assume continuing relief from
the AMT by adjusting it for inflation.

Include debt service cost on
the above changes due to added borrowing.

Under that scenario, deficits would
total $7.8 trillion over the 10-year period from 2009 to 2018. As a percentage
of the gross domestic product (GDP), deficits would steadily rise from 2.9
percent to 5.1 percent by 2018 and average 4.2 percent over the 10-year period.
The government's debt held by its outside creditors (debt held by the public)
would rise from 38 percent of GDP to 60 percent by 2018. Interest on this debt,
which is an expense borne by taxpayers, would climb from about $240 billion
this year to $638 billion by 2018.

This exercise is meant to warn against
the dire consequences of failing to change course. It is not meant to establish an acceptable standard against which
policy proposals should be measured. Unfortunately, in a race to the
bottom, that is exactly what the presidential candidates are doing. Instead of
measuring the budgetary impact of their respective budget plans against the
official baseline, they argue that their plans should instead be measured
against the much less favorable outlook shown in Concord’s plausible scenario
or similar projections.

The political logic behind this
baseline switch is obvious. Measured against current law (i.e., the official
CBO baseline) the candidates’ plans would significantly expand the deficit.
Measured against a much worse scenario such as Concord’s plausible baseline,
their plans show improvement. They can thus claim to be “lowering” the deficit
when, in fact, it might remain exactly where it is now or even go up.

“The deficit status quo is
unacceptable. Not only should policymakers strictly enforce paygo, they must
also begin taking steps to close the long-term unsustainable gap between
revenues and promised benefits for Medicare and Social Security. The fact that
we've had higher deficits before as a percentage of the economy and managed to
dig our way out offers no reason for complacency. Circumstances are very
different from the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The end of the Cold War
allowed us to shrink defense expenditures from 6 percent of GDP in 1985 to 3
percent by 2000. While defense spending has not gone back to Cold War
proportions, it has risen back to over 4 percent of GDP. Our national
savings rate has plummeted from over 8 percent to essentially zero and, as a
result, the portion of our debt held by foreign lenders has shot up from less than
20 percent to nearly 50 percent. More fundamentally, the boomers' retirement in
those days was a generation away. Now, the first boomers have already begun to
qualify for Social Security. In total, we face a much more urgent and difficult
situation than we did 20 years ago,” Bixby said.